Em5 II possible for bif and sports?

I've read quite a lot on how the em5 ii's c-af (and even the em1s) lags behind other mirror less systems. Knowing this, is it still feasible to use the camera for bif and sports (tele) and with a sub 1k. If so, what lens would that be. For arguments sake, I won't put an optimal focus distance yet.

Well, anything's possible - they used to do sports and BiF with manual focus!!!

However, by modern DSLR standards the EM5ii is woefully lacking, the EM1 is better and is good enough if you just want the occasional shot but if BiF and sports are your usual subjects then you still want a DSLR.

With regards to lenses, if you want the full 9fps CAF then the only real choice (as it has an impact on AF too) is the 40-150 pro (or one of the soon to be release super teles) but that will take the whole 1k budget. The older Four Thirds 50-200 is an option but you also need a converter and it will only AF on the EM1 and not as well the m43 lens.

That said, the cheap 40-150 kit zoom is surprisingly good, plasticy and slow aperture but very good IQ.

Sports, because it covers a large range of different types of motion doesn't describe the subject characteristics your question addresses. The question is whether the AF is capable of generally producing in focus pictures of fast moving, non-deterministic motion. The S-AF is generally fast and accurate and if you are familiar enough with your subject you can anticipate, to a large degree, motion and capture it. If you can't and have to depend on C-AF and possibly tracking, then the chances are greatly diminished. AF performance also depends on how fast a lens can change focus, and speed requires high torque motors that are generally only found in high end lenses.

It's feasible and workable. However, I'm more prone to use S-AF as it is very fast and very capable. Whether you use S-AF or C-AF you need to be able to get your focus target on your subject and be able to keep it there, even with the best of cameras.

I would not even try the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 on an E-M5II - I did on an E-M2 and it would take from a 1/2 - 2 sec to lock focus. So unless you want to try manually focusing or getting an E-M1, then m4/3 native lenses are what you are looking for.

My keeper rate with the E-M1 is quite high (80% + if I have the right CAF settings setup) capturing my 5 year old son playing soccer running full speed at me with the E-M1. I have plenty of examples through the last season below:

My only complaint really is I wish I had a bit more DOF control. A full frame 2.8 zoom would blur out a lot of the noisy backgrounds quite a bit more. Switching from the 35-100 2.8 to the 40-150 2.8 helped shooting longer for sure (shooting the 1.4 tc even more so at f4). And I try to get tighter at times risking missing composition if the kids are moving too fast. In the coming seasons I'm hoping to maybe rent or unload some m43 gear to get a full frame 70-200 2.8 for my Sony FE to see if I get the isolation I want. Not always happy with the oof of the 40-150 2.8. If it's really blown out looks great but if it's not it appears a bit busier then the 35-100. Personal taste though.

I take photos of many of my sons soccer games that goes back 2 years or so I believe if you want to look at more examples (I take lots of pictures =p):

My only complaint really is I wish I had a bit more DOF control. A full frame 2.8 zoom would blur out a lot of the noisy backgrounds quite a bit more. [snip]
In the coming seasons I'm hoping to maybe rent or unload some m43 gear to get a full frame 70-200 2.8 for my Sony FE to see if I get the isolation I want. Not always happy with the oof of the 40-150 2.8

Click to expand...

In this situation you are shooting with the 40-150 at f2.8 at a soccer field. If you switch to the Sony with the 70-200mm lens, for all shots in the 70 to 150mm range shot at the same f2.8 since your camera to subject to distance will be identical (unless you plan on running out onto the playing field during the game ), the DoF field for the those Sony shots will be identical to the m43 shots (if a scene is shot at the same focal length). The exception will be that you will be shooting at double to focal length on the Sony as on the m43, which will give you shallower DoF, but your field of view is now limited to that max of 200mm. Where as your 40-150 gives you up to 300mm equiv. of field of view.

So you might want to give this further thought before you dump your m43 system to buy a Sony lens that may not be as effective as you hope. You may gain a bit of DoF on some shots but also give up a fair bit of reach (something you mentioned as the reason to switch from the 35-100 to the 40-150 which on the Sony you will be going back to).

Edit to add: Your son is still young so the fields are small so you can still get pretty close. As he gets older the fields get bigger and you will end up further away. You might be looking for more reach at that time.

i havent tried it myself, but my friend whos been into photography for 40 years suggests i try the digital teleconverter for some zoom shots. it will retain your workable apperture (2.8) and could likely give you the same level of sharpness/detail at certain distances.

i havent tried it myself, but my friend whos been into photography for 40 years suggests i try the digital teleconverter for some zoom shots. it will retain your workable apperture (2.8) and could likely give you the same level of sharpness/detail at certain distances.

i havent tried it myself, but my friend whos been into photography for 40 years suggests i try the digital teleconverter for some zoom shots. it will retain your workable apperture (2.8) and could likely give you the same level of sharpness/detail at certain distances.

Links in this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.